Choice. Use It or Lose It.

Other than football or Davy Crockett, my favorite topic seems to be choice.  Choice is one of those topics that conservatives or Republicans have done a horrible job of presenting their case.  Choice is not only about the abortion issue.  But because Democrats claim to be the party of choice in the case of allowing a baby to live, they have claimed the mantle of the party of choice.  I would really like to see an instance of Democrats or Progressives actually favoring choice on any issue.  As of last January, they are taking away your choice of health care insurance.  Like it or not, you are going to be paying for Obamacare.  Does your local school district teach your child as well as you would like?  Would you prefer for the money you pay to support public schools to go toward your child's education at a private school or even better toward materials and programs to help you home school your child?  Thanks to your Progressive Democratic party, that's not an option.  In spite of the public support of a voucher system, all of your tax dollars allocated to education goes straight to teacher's unions through your local public school.  If you want to put your child in a private school, or home school your child, you'll be paying extra for that.

Do you want your tax dollars bailing out banks like J.P. Morgan Chase?  Your money being flooded into General Motors and Chrysler?  Do you believe that abortion is not a form of birth control, but is immoral?  Do you want your money going to Planned Parenthood, who in spite of the repeated lies by the president does NOT provide any type of cancer screening?  They are primarily an abortion provider.  Not just primarily, almost exclusively, an abortion provider.  Want your tax dollars going to them, so they can perform an act that you find immoral?  Do you want to invest in solar panel manufacturers with a very questionable chance of success, such as Solyndra?  Would you prefer to invest your hard earned money in proven oil, natural gas, or coal exploration and research?  Well, unfortunately you have absolutely no choice in any of those matters.  If you pay federal income tax, a portion of your money goes to teacher's unions, General Motors, Chrysler, and Planned Parenthood.

Whether you like it or not, your money went to green energy companies like Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, Solyndra, Beacon Power, Ener1, Abound Solar, A123 Systems, Willard & Kelsey Solar, Raser Technologies, and more.  This is just a portion of the list of companies that received YOUR money and later declared bankruptcy.  Here's a complete list of companies that received taxpayer money, including those now bankrupt.    These companies received a total of $80 billion of your money.  Companies that are no longer in business received $8 billion of that total.  Was that your idea?  Did you support that decision?

How about the federal regulations proposed solely by the appointed, not elected, EPA that severely limits the ability of oil companies to provide proven relatively inexpensive sources of energy for you everyday?  Want to eliminate the coal industry entirely?  Your president does.  He's doing it through the Environmental Protection Agency.  You vote for anyone in that agency?  Nope.  You couldn't.  It's staffed by presidential appointees.  Doesn't matter whether you approve or not.  There's absolutely nothing you can do about their actions.

If you think all these decisions that affect you everyday of your life are frustrating, just wait until Obamacare is fully implemented.  The federal government makes all these decisions on your behalf with really no justification.  Some, like many of the investments in green energy, were payback to donors to the president's campaign.  Some, like the bailout of General Motors and Chrysler were payback to unions for their support.  What do you think the federal government will do to your individual choice, your freedom, your bank account, using the cost of healthcare as justification?  Think Mayor Bloomberg in New York City has been heavy-handed by outlawing sugary drinks of more than 16 ounces?

Imagine that policy on a national level.  Think it will end there?  Or do you think that's just the start?  Is it more likely that, first sizes, then the availability altogether of candy, energy drinks, alcohol, fast food, snack food will be limited?  What about other things on the Progressive wish list that can be even remotely linked to healthcare costs?  Except for their own personal use (ever see how Al Gore gets to any of those climate change conferences?), Progressives absolutely hate big SUV's.  They emit too much CO2, right?  That's bad for your health.  If you must drive, your only choice will be to pay $40,000 for a Volt.  Do you own a gun?  It is a right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, but how long will it take to make it a right regulated by healthcare policies?  The government could eliminate hunting accidents by eliminating firearms, right?  If you really don't think that's not only a possibility, but a likely outcome just find a single instance in the past century  where the federal government exercised a newly gained power responsibly.  No, history shows that with power and the government, not just ours, but any government, the phrase "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" is actually an understatement.

I believe this sense of helplessly watching the federal government taking more and more of our choices away is the basis of the secession craze that took hold after the reelection of President Obama.  One positive of the past two election cycles is the return to office of Republican governors, even in traditional Democratic strongholds like Wisconsin and Ohio.  Governors and states need to find a backbone and stand up to the federal government as it grabs all this power.  Out of all the programs I have mentioned, how many are a power given to the federal government in our Constitution?  I'll give you a minute to do a little research.  You back yet?  Still looking?  I'll give you a hint how many.  The answer rhymes with "hero."  Or "done."  That's right zero.  None.  Zip.  Nada.  The federal government, mainly over the past 100 years, has just taken these programs upon themselves.  The programs, if they are to be implemented at all, are the right or responsibility of the individual states to implement.  Article I Section 8 of the Constitution lists 18 powers that We the People granted to our federal government.  By design, this is a short list.  The 10th Amendment to the Constitution reserves any other power, not part of this list of 18, to either the people or the states.

The states are supposed to be, as Mitt Romney said in one of the debates, the "laboratories of ideas."  Massachusetts can try a state run healthcare.  If it's successful, other states will follow suit.  If it's not, citizens of Massachusetts will have a choice, either end the experiment or move to a state without the policy.  Same with green energy projects, environmental regulations, land use restrictions, public education.  These policies should be state mandated.  Allow the citizens of the United States to vote with their feet.  They will move to a state that is successful, has jobs available, has affordable housing, and good schools.  Voters in other states will elect state officials that will bring successful policies to their state.  Even in times like now where the federal government has taken control and mandated so many of these failed policies nationally, there examples of states succeeding with their own policies.  See the gas boom in South Dakota for an obvious example.  Unemployment is almost non-existent in the state, the housing industry is booming, the  state is bringing in record amounts of tax revenue, not by raising tax rates, but because the citizens are prospering.  So if it is spent wisely, their education will improve and they will be a model for other states to look toward.

But as is usually the case, the federal government rarely celebrates success by an individual or a state.  Rather they seek to punish it.  Watch for the EPA's report on fracking, a main component of the success of the gas industry in South Dakota.  If past behavior is a predictor of future actions, the EPA will crack down on the practice.  States have been negligent in standing up to the federal government's power grabs.  I think that whether consciously or just intuitively, we the people, know these powers have been granted to us by our Creator, by Nature, or Nature's god as stated in the Declaration of Independence.  We failed to push our states to stand up to the federal government as it took more and more of our choices away.  The deep divisions in our society that seem to become so prominent in the past 10 years are a result of our choices being eliminated.  The current secession phenomenon is the latest consequence.  I hope our states push their Constitution-granted rights and that the Supreme Court is still responsible enough to uphold the Constitution. If not the next step is up to the we the people and our choices are becoming more limited by the day.

Why Won't We Drill?

I've already written too much about President Obama's policies that are trying to push us toward windmills, solar panels, and plug-in cars.  He is trying to do this in spite of the fact that those sources of energy and those cars are not reliable or efficient.  That is why under his policy, electricity costs "will necessarily skyrocket."  He is using federal tax incentives and regulations to discourage drilling in the U.S.  As I've mentioned previously, tighter regulations (by the state in this case ) in western Colorado severely limited exploration for natural gas.  The low price of natural gas combined with the regulations led Halliburton to close operations in the Grand Junction area, an area that went from unemployment rates under 4% in 2008 to today's rate of over 11%.  Another example of Change You Can Believe In.  Where did those jobs go?  Take a look at the state that Yahoo named the Best State to live in - North Dakota.  High paying drilling jobs have taken the state's unemployment rate to 3.8%!  5% below the national average.  Why are companies drilling there?  The state is not regulating "fracking" like Colorado began a couple of years ago.

Fracking is not a cleaned up version of an obscenity.  It is a slang word for fracturing.  In order to release oil and natural gas from the rock formations, companies fracture the formation.  Even though the procedure has been used for decades in Texas, Oklahoma, and other oil-producing states, the state of Colorado decided the process needed more study to determine its impact on the environment, especially water supplies.  As is usually the case, the media jumped in immediately with sensational stories to influence the debate.  A family went to a Denver television station with a story about their flammable tap water.  Sure enough, video shows their tap water being lit with a cigarette lighter as it comes from their kitchen faucet.  The connection to drilling?  A new well was recently drilled 7 miles away.  The drilling company did frack the well.  The state's energy department said that flammable water from wells is actually pretty common, and was reported in several areas of the state whether gas production was present or not.  Drilling for water sometimes passes through layers of the earth with pockets of natural gas.  As a rule, the release of gas is limited to a very short time.  But of course none of that made into the news reports. So, Colorado's Department of Natural Resources used the worry about fracking as an excuse to tighten regulations on the practice.  And effectively drive Halliburton along with its jobs out of the state.


Now, with gas prices inching towards $4 a gallon, Obama is starting to feel some heat on his energy policies, starting with the offshore drilling moratorium put into effect, in spite of a federal court ruling against it, immediately following the BP disaster a year ago.  This is an issue that he should worry about.  Unemployment in the 8% to 10% range has become the "new normal."  So that probably won't get as much attention as it should in the 2012 election campaign, especially with the media spinning the "improvement" that has the rate just below 9% now.  I think the average voter will have a very difficult time accepting $4 a gallon gasoline as normal, especially when they receive a $100 reminder each time they fill up their Government Motors Tahoe!

Reading the newspaper will tell you that oil and gas production is expected to be a big issue in the next election.  As one site I read said, you can tell what worries the Demoncrats by what they attack.  And they are attacking oil and gas exploration now.  Last week's Denver Post had a front section story, page 2 if my memory serves, about the environmental impact of fracking.   On Monday, the city of Grand Junction announced the opening of the western slope's first station selling natural gas for cars and city vehicles, touting natural gas's affordability and the fact that it clean burning.  So the Demoncrats, through the Denver Post launched their attacks.  The page 2 story reported that the environmental friendliness of natural gas was overstated, when the impact of fracking was considered.  They described giant trucks lumbering over the fragile western slope, pounding the earth to release the natural gas, just like black smoke spewing dinosaurs.  When you consider the impact of the equipment's emissions, the lack of emission of natural gas burning cars is more than offset, according to the Post.  Now this is my question, not the question of the so-called journalist writing the article -  why should the environmental cost (assuming there is actually one) of fracking should be considered when choosing a natural gas powered car, but not the source of electricity for the Volt ( too bad Fiero was already taken, because this story shows Fiero would be a more appropriate name).  Clean burning coal is the source of over half the electricity needed to power the Volt.  Luckily no one is buying - either the car or the fear of environmental catastrophe.

Next came a front page of the business section article.  This article seemed to be in response to the reports of the high paying jobs that left Colorado for more friendly states like Texas, Oklahoma, the Dakotas, and New Mexico.  The Post reported that the production from the exploration of western Colorado was greatly overstated.  The Post reported that of 16 wells they studied for the report, almost "half produced 800 barrels a day, or less."  Now, I was no math major, but just assume that those 16 wells averaged 800 barrels a day.  Probably a low estimate, considering the spin the author seemed to be giving the article.  Oil is $105 a barrel as I am writing this.  Again, I was not a math major, so lets round down to $100 to make the math easier.  Mr. Haight, my 4th grade math in Gruver, TX would be proud to know that I remember that to multiply by 100, just add two zeroes to the number you are multiplying.  So using these low estimates, these wells would make $80,000 a day!  Oh yeah, times 16 wells.  That's only $1,280,000 a day.  Again, let's make the math easier by assuming that these wells belong to a good union and only work 300 days a year.  What local economy wouldn't appreciate the production of $384,000,000 in a year?  Now, my bank statement rarely shows a comma, and never has two!  But if my memory of Mr. Haight's class is correct, those six zeroes and two commas denote millions.  $384 million, by conservative estimates, in a year.  Using data from only 16 wells studied for the article.  Imagine what the real numbers for the area would be!  That might put a couple of folks in the "rich" bracket that the Demoncrats are so fond of exploiting through tax increases.

This week's Post featured a front of the Perspective section article on the "real" west.  The article disputed the Republican's claim of representing the west in the battle to ease land use regulation by the Department of the Interior.  The article quoted a poll of western voters that supported the government's "protection" of our public lands.  The problem with the poll is the same as most westerners have come election time.  The polling is skewed by the heavily populated cities of Denver, Boulder, Las Vegas, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.  The constituents that wouldn't know a wilderness area not featured on a granola box, decide the policy for millions of acres of federally controlled/regulated land and the media spins it as the opinion of average westerners.  Whether that land should be federally controlled is another issue that I wrote about last year. 

Finally, today's news reported the final shot at the oil and gas exploration-friendly area of western Colorado.  Unfortunately in Colorado, the Demoncrats still control the state government.  Even worse, it's a re-distric
ting year.  So, the legislature has announced its recommendations for a new district that would include the traditionally Republican area of Grand Junction.  The area will be merged with the San Francisco/Los Angeles of the state, Boulder and Fort Collins.  This move will assure the conservative western slope will have virtually no representation in the state government.  So the folks that made the once proud state of Colorado the first to legalize abortion in the 70's and led the state's march to legalized marijuana will now decide representation for the conservative west.

I have had a very difficult time writing this post.  It's hard to keep my thoughts on track with all the B.S. being thrown right now.  My blood pressure is probably spiking now.  Sarah Palin may not be able to see the Kremlin from her front porch, but she is right on the correct energy policy for our country - "drill, baby, drill."  Or maybe her other creed is more appropriate - "don't retreat, reload."

Public Lands, Hope, Change, Hope It Changes!

When we first moved to Arizona in the 90's, one of the first things I noticed was all the public land.  We went all over the north and central part of the state, hiking, camping, and taking day trips.  Coming from Texas, I couldn't believe that you could do so much travelling without coming to a fence, locked gate, or No Trespassing sign. 

As someone who loves to camp, hike, and practice outdoor photography, I really enjoy the access to all the wild areas of the state.  Colorado also is home to large amounts of federally controlled land.  Take a look at the maps of the three states above.  Any part of that map that is not white is owned in some way by the federal government.  I'm not sure what percentage of Colorado and Arizona are federal land, but it is well over 50%.  Texas is just under 2%.  I read that Utah is over 90%, and Nevada is 98%!  I think the only part of Nevada not controlled by the government must be Las Vegas.  No wonder President Obama seems to hate Vegas! 

Recently the President used an executive order to "protect" parts of western Colorado to preserve habitat for wild horses.  Who doesn't want to protect the habitat of wild horses?  I don't know how he finds time for all his interests.  What with running Government Motors, Chrysler, all those banks, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, controlling excessive insurance company profits, and getting healthcare legislation passed in spite of the fact that most Americans don't want it.  I bet he watched the Disney movie Spirit, with his daughters last weekend.  And they said, "daddy, you've got to make sure those poor horses have a place to live!"  You know how persuasive little girls can be.  He probably looked at a map and figured that western Colorado would be a good place for some mustangs, I bet he watched an old Ronald Reagan Henry Fonda western that mentioned horses in Colorado. 

Surely it wouldn't be because of the shale deposits in the area that he decided to limit private company's access?  You know the shale that energy companies can extract clean burning, efficient natural gas from?  The same energy companies that would provide hundreds of high paying jobs to people who would then buy houses, cars, healthcare insurance, and pay taxes.  That's what President Reagan called "trickle down economics."  It does work.  It's the only thing that does work.  The problem that President Obama and his progressive friends have with trickle down economics is that private companies are making money.  And deciding for themselves how to spend it. 

I travelled regularly in the Grand Junction area last year and listened to a local radio station frequently.  They started with stories about tighter regulations on drilling in the area, making it more expensive to extract the natural gas, which was going down in price at the same time.  Then, later in the year, Haliburton announced that it was discontinuing operations in the area and laying off hundreds of employees.  Home construction in the area that had been booming for over a year, suddenly slowed to a crawl.  Construction workers that had been spending a good portion of their paychecks in the local stores moved on to jobs in other parts of the country (probably Texas with all its non-federal land).  Guess what?  Unemployment went from 3.5% in the summer of 2007 to 4.5% in January 2008 to 9.4% in today's report.  Oh yeah, with all those evil energy companies, their well-paid employees and their paychecks going elsewhere, sales in the area stores dropped dramatically, forcing more layoffs.  And to make matters worse, the drop in sales brings a drop in sales tax revenues.  So now the local governments are feeling the pain too.  Only the government could screw things up this bad and this quickly.  

So, the obvious solution?  Restrict development in the region even more!  Not what you would've thought?  Well, then you are obviously not a mustang loving Harvard graduate.  

To steal a line from Sarah Palin, "How's that hope-y change-y thang working out for ya now?"